JUDGEMENT Surinder Singh, J: The appellant, hereinafter referred as “the accused” is father-in-law of Savita @ Sonu deceased. He laid a challenge to his conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court in Sessions Trial No.24/7 of 2010, decided on 18.10.2011, whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of ‘10,000/- with default clause.ADMITTED FACTS. 2. On 19.2.2009, Shri Rakesh Kumar son of the accused was married to deceased Savita @ Sonu, now to be referred as deceased.Said Rakesh Kumar was in private job somewhere in Delhi and the deceased used to live in her matrimonial house in village Susnal, Tehsil Ghumarwin. Deceased Savita committed suicide on 24.10.2009 by consuming Aluminium Phosphide an insecticide. Accused is a retiree from Electricity Board of Himachal Pradesh. PROSECUTION CASE. 3. One Shri Ramesh a close relative of the deceased informed police telephonically that deceased-wife of Rakesh Kumar was taken to Hospital Hamirpur in a vehicle. She had died. The vehicle was standing near Petrol Pump, Bhota with her dead body. Since he entertained some doubt, the matter be enquired into. This information was recorded in the daily diary Ext.PW13/A and passed on the higher authorities. PW1 3 SI/S HO Prem Singh was in the Illaqa in connection with some investigation. An information was also passed on to him on his cell phone by the M.H.C. (ii) On receiving information, PW13 aforesaid proceeded to the spot alongwith some police officials. The information was correct. He took photographs Exts.P4 to P8 of the dead body with a digital camera. He also examined it with the assistance of a lady constable Anita Kumari and prepared inquest papers Exts.PW10/B and C, thereafter the dead body was taken to Regional Hospital, Hamirpur and moved an application Ext.PW10/A to the Chief Medical Officer, for conducting the post-mortem. (iii) PW 10 Dr. Rakesh Dhiman, conducted the autopsy on the same day around 5.30 p.m. Doctor did not find any external injury on any part of the body, but noticed mouth and pharynx full of fine white froth. Stomach was grossly congested containing dark grey fluid with the pungent smell. The Viscera was preserved and sealed for chemical examination alongwith the wearing apparels found on the dead body. In his opinion, probable time which elapsed between death and post-mortem between 4 to 6 hours. Stomach was grossly congested containing dark grey fluid with the pungent smell. The Viscera was preserved and sealed for chemical examination alongwith the wearing apparels found on the dead body. In his opinion, probable time which elapsed between death and post-mortem between 4 to 6 hours. Post mortem report Ext.PW10/D. (iv) Viscera was examined in the Laboratory The report is Ext.PW10/E. As per forensic report Phosphine gas (Phosphate) was detected in the Viscera. On the basis of this report, PW10 Dr. Rakesh Dhiman gave his final opinion Ext.PW10/F that the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of Pulmonary Oedema. (v)After post-mortem, the dead body was handed over to Shri Rajiv Sharma, brother-in- law (Devar of the deceased). It was consigned to flames in the presence of relativesand friendsincluding the complainant party. (vi)On 25.10.2009, PW13 SI Prem Singh visited village Susnal, where he met PW3 Varinder Kumar, younger brother of the deceased, who had just arrived in the morning from Banglore where he was serving in the Army. He got recorded his statement Ext.PW3/A, which culminated into FIR Ext.PW13/B. (vii) PW3 aforesaid came to know from his brother Vijay Kumar about the death of his sister. Precisely, in his statement Ext.PW3/A to the police he alleged that after the marriage of his sister for about 2-3 months, she lived happily in the matrimonial house. In the month of July, 2009, when he was on leave, his elder sister PW4 Meena Kumari informed him that the deceased had disclosed her that whenever the accused found the deceased alone in his house, he had been doing some obscene acts with her. To this effect, she had also complained to her husband and mother-in-law. It was also got confirmed from the deceased by him, she told him that the accused had been making unsolicited advances towards her, but she requested complainant not to talk, about it, with anyone as the prestige of the family was at stake. He also stated that 15 days prior to the death of his sister, she contacted her telephonically and told him that the accused had not desisted from his obscene activities and it was very difficult for her to live in such an atmosphere. He also stated that 15 days prior to the death of his sister, she contacted her telephonically and told him that the accused had not desisted from his obscene activities and it was very difficult for her to live in such an atmosphere. The complainant assured her to visit her on 24.10.2009 to settle the matter and advised her to keep away in the meantime from the accused, but on 24.10.2009, he was informed about her death. On the aforesaid statement FIR Ext.P W13/B was formally registered. (viii)On 25.10.2009, PW13 SI Prem Singh visited the house of the accused and prepared site plan Ext.PW13/C. During inspection of the house, two letters one Ext.P2 written by the deceased to the accused and her mother- in-law from Delhi regarding the allegations aforesaid and to mend his ways and another Ext.P3 written by her husband from Delhi feeling apologetic whatever he had spoken to him. These were found kept in an envelope Ext. P1 beneath the mattresses of a double bed in the room of the house of the deceased. Both these letters were taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW3/B. (ix) Accused was arrested on 25.10.2009. Later granted bail. (x) On 28.10.2009, PW3 Complainant Varinder Kumar produced notebook Ext.PB containing writing of the deceased. It was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/B. Police also took into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/A an application Ext.PA, written by Rakesh Kumar her husband in his own hand seeking leave. (xi) On 12.11.2009, the sample writings of Rakesh Kumar aforesaid were obtained beforeJudicialOfficer,whichare Exts.PW1 2/S-1 to Ext.PW1 2/S-24. The questioned documents i.e. the letters Exts.P2 and P3 and envelope Ext. P1 and sample writings and notebook were sent to the FSL, Junga. These were examined by PW12 Dr. Meenakshi Mahajan, a forensic document expert. She proved the report Ext.PW12/A. The letter Ext.P2 was found to have been written by the deceased and Ext.P3 and Ext. P1 (Q9) by her husband. 4. On completing the investigation, challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the accused. Finding a prima-facie case against the accused, he was accordingly charge-sheeted for abetting the deceased to commit suicide, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT. 5. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses. Finding a prima-facie case against the accused, he was accordingly charge-sheeted for abetting the deceased to commit suicide, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT. 5. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses. Accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with respect to the circumstances, which were found attendant upon him. He had submitted his written statement of defence Ext. DE. According to him, his house was searched by ASI Bhagat Ram on 24.10.2009 and nothing incriminating was recovered. The recovery of letters on the next date i.e. on 25.10.2009 are concocted. He was falsely implicated in this case. It is also stated that he and his son both had deposited a sum of rupees 1 lac in the name of the deceased on 6.3.2009.He appended photocopy of the receipt. PW3 Virender Kumar roped him wrongly in this case. He also relied upon the information supplied pursuant to application under RTI vide letter Ext.DF informing him that the present case was investigated by the then SI Prem Singh and ASI Bhagat Ram. Except report dated 24.10.2009 with respect to reporting back to the Police Station, no other reference was there and the challan stood already presented in the Court. 6. Learned trial Court while believing the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT. 7. Shri Vinay Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, forcefully argued that the present case against the accused is a cooked-up story. The letters in question are fabricated documents. Report of the document Expert is wrong and incorrect. It is also argued that if the complainant and his relatives were in know of the alleged allegations prior to her death, then as to why it was not reported to Panchayat or Police. He also referred to the evidence on record highlighting the so called contradictions which according to him make the prosecution case a suspect and further ventilated that the documents tendered in evidence by the accused were not appreciated in the right perspective which probablised his defence. He further submitted that no case of cruelty or abetment as alleged is made out which allegedly grove the deceased to commit suicide. He further submitted that no case of cruelty or abetment as alleged is made out which allegedly grove the deceased to commit suicide. To buttress his arguments, he put his reliance on the judgments Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhhattisgarh [(2001)9 SCC 618], Hans Raj v. State of Haryana [(2004) 12 SCC 257], Anand Kumar V. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2009) 3 SCC 799] and Amalendu Pal Alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [ (2010)1 SCC 707], rendered by the apex Court. 8. Contra, Shri A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General, duly assisted by Shri R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. It is also argued that letter of the deceased and that of her husband both were proved to be in their respective hand. The allegations contained therein are duly supported by ocular version which prove the charge. It is further submitted that the deceased at the cost of her family, told her brother (complainant) not to disclose this fact to anyone. Thus, she only confided in her near relatives to resolve the issue, but they failed to resolve. The evidence exhibits that the deceased was tortured physically and mentally as well thus forced to commit suicide. Therefore, the learned trial Court judgment cannot be faulted. CONCLUSION ON REAPPRASAL OF EVIDENCE. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have meticulously scanned, reappraised the evidence on record, the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code requires the twin proof:- 1.commission of suicide; and 2.Its abetment by such commission of suicide. 11. Admittedly, the deceased had married Rakesh Kumar on 19.2.2009 and she committed suicide on 24.10.2009 i.e. within nine months by consuming insecticide. Deceased was living with the accused and her mother-in-law and her husband Rakesh Kumar was working in Delhi and was not there, when she had committed suicide. 12. Abatement involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person is doing a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. 12. Abatement involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person is doing a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. Therefore, this Court is required to scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also access the evidence adduced before it to find out cruelty or harassment meted out to the victim which had left her with no other choice but to put end to her life. 13. Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act raises a presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. It reads as under:- “113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman- husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Explanation- For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code ( 45 of 1850).” (emphasis supplied) 14. Legally the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act can be raised, where the death takes place within 7 years of marriage and the prosecution proves that the husband or her near relative had subjected her to cruelty or harassment. Thus cruel treatment/harassment is required to be proved besides the time of marriage having taken place. 15. In Anand Kumar’s, Hans Raj’s case supra, relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused while dealing with a dowry death case and abetment of suicide, the apex Court examined the provisions of Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and observed that the aforesaid provisions do raise a presumption, but the facts of the case cannot be ignored. The different terminology of both these Sections brings out the real purpose behind the two provisions and whereas Section 113-B places a heavier onus on an accused, the onus placed under Section 113-A is far lighter. On comparative reading of the two provisions, the Apex Court held that under Section 113-A the Court “may presume”, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, an abetment of suicide as visualised by Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, but in Section 113-B which is relatable to Section 304-B the word “may” has been substituted by “shall” and there is no reference to the circumstances of the case. 16. In Amalandu Pal @ Jhantu’s case, the definition of “abetment” has been provided under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code by the Supreme Court in Para 14. It also observed that Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment than the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Thus the Court has to examine the matter from both angles, i.e. one by the aid of Section 113-A Evidence Act and Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. (Please also see Hans Raj versus State of Haryana (2004)12 SCC 257. 17. In another judgment Ramesh Kumar’s case supra, wherein the facts revealed that the deceased was disappointed, frustrated and depressed, she was overtaken by a feeling of shortcomings which she attributed to herself. She was overcome by forceful feeling generating within her that in the assessment of her husband she did not deserve to be his life partner committed suicide by burning herself. The Apex Court in this background held that the accused may or must have told the deceased that she was free to go anywhere she liked. May be that was in a fit of anger as contrary to his wish and immediate convenience the deceased was emphatic on being dropped at his sister’s residence to see her. Presumably the accused may have said some such thing. May be that was in a fit of anger as contrary to his wish and immediate convenience the deceased was emphatic on being dropped at his sister’s residence to see her. Presumably the accused may have said some such thing. The deceased being a pious Hindu wife felt that having being given in marriage by her parents to her husband, she had no other place to go excepting the house of her husband and if the husband had “freed” her she thought impulsively that the only thing which she could do was to kill herself, die peacefully and thus free herself according to her understanding of the husband’s wish. By setting ablaze, the conduct of the husband in trying to putt off the fire and taken his wife to the hospital also improbabilises the theory of his having abetted to commit suicide, but in the instant case, no such circumstances have been highlighted nor proved; therefore, this judgment is hardly of any held to him. 18. Although, Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are independent and constitute different offences, but depending on the facts and circumstances of an individual case, subjecting a woman to cruelty may amount to an offence under Section 498-A and may also, if a course of conduct amounting to cruelty is established leaving no other option for the woman except to commit suicide amount to abetment to commit suicide. However, merely because an accused has been held liable to be punished under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code it does not follow that on the same evidence he must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the woman concerned. Thus, Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are independent and constitute different offences depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 19. In nut-shell, there is consistency in the judgments of the Apex Court as stated supra that before holding an accused guilty of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put her life to an end. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the crime of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. In order words, the person who is alleged to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain acts to facilitate the commission of suicide. Further the instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence, yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. 20. Having regard to the principles aforesaid, I now advert to the facts precisely stated by the witnesses in this case. 21. PW3 Varinder Kumar, younger brother of the deceased has corroborated the prosecution story. He is the maker of the statement Ext.PW3/A, recorded by the police under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He categorically stated about having been informed by his elder sister PW4 Meena Kumari about the unsolicited advances made by the accused, which fact according to him was also confirmed by the deceased when having been asked from him. He also testified that the deceased told him not to discuss this matter with anybody else because it is a matter of prestige of her family. He further testified that 10-15 days before her death, she had contacted him telephonically and disclosed that the accused has given severe beatings to her sister-in-law (JETHANI) and the atmosphere in the house was very tense and the accused had still been continuing with the obscene activities whenever he gets chance. He stated that he told her that he would be coming on leave on 20.10.2009 and shall take up the matter with the accused, but on 24.10.2009, he received a telephonic call from his brother Vijay Kumar that she had died. He stated that he told her that he would be coming on leave on 20.10.2009 and shall take up the matter with the accused, but on 24.10.2009, he received a telephonic call from his brother Vijay Kumar that she had died. He also stated about recovery of letters Ext.P2 written in the hand of by her deceased sister and Ext. P3 written by her husband having been recovered from beneath the mattresses in the room of the house of accused and he identified the handwriting of deceased on Ext.P2. He stated that she was born and brought up in his presence and had seen her writing since her school days, that is how he could identify her handwriting. About 4-5 days after the registration of the case, he also handed over the notebook Ext.PB, of the deceased to the police, which was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW2/B. Thus his opinion as to the writing of the deceased becomes relevant under Section 47 of the Evidence Act. This witness was subjected to meticulous cross-examination. He was confronted with his statement Ext.PW3/A with respect to the fact that the deceased had asked him not to discuss this matter with anybody because of the prestige of her family wherein only the fact of family prestige was not recorded specifically. He also stated that with respect to the conversation made on his cell phone he did not hand over, such details to the police. He admitted the suggestion that deceased had informed him about the beatings given to herJethani. Further he stated that the deceased is also said to have revealed these allegations against the accused to his mother, when she visited during Diwali with her husband. During the month of July, 2009, he stated, remained on leave for 22 days, but at that time, deceased was residing at Delhi with her husband, where she had remained for about more than three months, i.e., w.e.f. June to September, 2009. He also stated that the accused alongwith deceased and other family members had gone on a religious tour to ‘Badrinath” from 16.9.2009 to 22.9.2009 and even during ‘Karvachauth’ on 18.10.2009, both, i.e, the deceased and her husband had visited them. On 21.10.2009, her husband had left for Delhi. But he denied having registered a false case against the accused. He also stated that the house of the accused was searched before her cremation. On 21.10.2009, her husband had left for Delhi. But he denied having registered a false case against the accused. He also stated that the house of the accused was searched before her cremation. He did not remember the exact time, but stated that during search the police recovered the letters aforesaid in his presence and many other persons. He specifically denied that notebook as well as letters aforesaid did not contain the handwriting of the deceased. 22. The fact of informing about the allegations made by the deceased is corroborated by her elder sister PW4 Meena Kumari. She stated having told the deceased to resist unfavourable advances of the accused. The deceased revealed her that the accused had been telling her that he loved her like his own son, but deceased particularly did not like obscene acts which he committed in absence of his wife. PW4 also stated that when she told the deceased to make a complaint to her mother-in- law, she informed that she had already complained to her and also her husband telephonically, but the accused did not stop. She also stated that she had informed the husband of the deceased telephonically and told that he knew everything but assured her that it would be set right and would make his father understand. She (PW4) further stated that in the month of June, 2009, the deceased was taken to Delhi where she stayed with her husband for about 2 1/2 months but the deceased was called back by the accused to go a religious trip, however, she told her husband that she did not want to go there, but he told her that she could stay back at home and finish the agricultural work on priority, so that he could take her back to Delhi. She also stated having informed her brother regarding these developments. PW4 also stated that Rakesh Kumar also talked to his father about the allegations, but he refuted the same, whereas Sonu had confronted him with it. She stated that accused used to hug tightly and tried to kiss her on her mouth, as alleged by the deceased, but this fact did not find mentioned in her statement recorded by the police therein. Even with respect to the obscene act, there was no reference in her statement. She stated that accused used to hug tightly and tried to kiss her on her mouth, as alleged by the deceased, but this fact did not find mentioned in her statement recorded by the police therein. Even with respect to the obscene act, there was no reference in her statement. However, she admitted that her mother had a talk with deceased in the morning on 24.10.2009, she had informed that deceased was ill and was being taken to Hamirpur and they should also come there, if they wish. She stated that the police was informed that the deceased had been sexually harassed by the accused. She expressed her ignorance about the illness of deceased on 21.10.2009 and having been treated by Dr. Ajay Prashad, but to probablise this fact, Dr. Ajay Parshad was not examined in defence. 23. PW5 Sheela Devi is the mother of the deceased. She also made the similar statement to that of PW3 Varinder Kumar. She further stated that during July, 2009 the deceased and her husband visited her house. The deceased complained that the accused did indulge in obscene acts with her. She asked from her husband about this fact he said that he would set everything right and take the deceased with him to Delhi. Though, she was overzealous in her statement and alleged for the first time in the Court that the deceased also harassed for bringing less dowry, but this allegation is not correct. 24. PW7 Maya Devi is the sister-in-law of the deceased married to Rajesh Kumar, another son of the accused. She proved the report Ext.PW7/A made to the police against the accused wherein she had also made the allegations against the accused about unfavourable advances towards her and picking up a quarrel with her and alleged having been given abuses and beatings on 6.10.2009. In cross-examination, she stated that the above matter was compromised with the accused by a written compromise Mark-DA, whereby the accused had tendered apology. She was examined by the prosecution to prove the previous conduct of the accused regarding unfavourable advances towards his another daughter-in-law. 25. The above ocular version when examined in the light of the documentary evidence and also in view of the statements of the Investigating officer and postal authorities, makes the things clear. 26. The documentary evidence constitutes letters Exts.P2, P3 and envelope Ext. 25. The above ocular version when examined in the light of the documentary evidence and also in view of the statements of the Investigating officer and postal authorities, makes the things clear. 26. The documentary evidence constitutes letters Exts.P2, P3 and envelope Ext. P1, alleged to have been recovered from beneath the mattresses of the double-bed from the house of accused on 25.10.2009 in the presence of PW1 Raghunath by PW13 SI Prem Singh, the recovery of which have been disputed by the accused on the ground that his house was searched on 24.10.2009 by ASI Bhagat Ram but no documents were found. It has come in evidence that the accused had two houses in that village, it has not been brought on record which of the house was searched by ASI Bhagat Ram. PW13 SI Prem Singh, who investigated the case after the registration of the FIR testified that during inspection of the house on 25.10.2009 in the presence of Varinder Kumar and Naresh Kumar, he recovered the aforesaid letters, which were in the envelope Ext.P1, as stated supra. In cross-examination, he also stated that no statement was given by anyone that the deceased was harassed by the accused till the evening of 24.10.2009. He further stated that after the cremation, PW3 Varinder Kumar got recorded his statement Ext.PW3/A. He admitted that the case was partly investigated by ASI Bhagat Ram and also admitted the correctness of the daily diary Ext.DD dated 24.10.2009 lodged by ASI Bhagat Ram, but there is no mention which of the house was searched by him on 24.10.2009. 27. PW15 SI Bhagat Ram, the then ASI stated having recorded the statement of PW6 Mohinder Kumar and Post-Master at Malviya Nagar, Delhi and enquired about the envelope Ext.P1 and stamps Ext.PA thereon. No question with respect to the search alleged to have been conducted by him on 24.10.2009 asked from him. 28. PW8 Sukh Dev is the Sub Post Master, P.O. Lehari, Sarail. On seeing the envelope Ext.P1 and stamps thereon, he stated having received it in his office for delivery to the addressee and this letter was received in the month of July, 2009. 29. 28. PW8 Sukh Dev is the Sub Post Master, P.O. Lehari, Sarail. On seeing the envelope Ext.P1 and stamps thereon, he stated having received it in his office for delivery to the addressee and this letter was received in the month of July, 2009. 29. The critical examination of the aforesaid documentary evidence and the statements of other official witnesses discussed above leads me to the conclusion that the envelope Ext.P1 was delivered to the accused, which contained letters Exts.P2 and P3 having been recovered from his house. The writing of letter Ext.P2 was compared by PW12 Dr. Meenakshi Mahajan, handwriting expert with notebook Ext.PB, pertaining to the deceased, maintained during her M.P.Ed. final year. PW3 her brother Varinder Kumar has proved the writing on the notebook aforesaid as well as on the letter Exts.P2 to be in the handwriting of the deceased as he had seen her writing during the School days and was brought up in his presence and to dislodge to these witnesses, there is no cross-examination worth the name, which can make it a suspect. Thus, it stands established that the letter Ext.P2 dated 29.6.2009 was sent by the deceased to her Parents- in-law and Ext.P3 by her husband to his parents though there is no date on Ext.P3. Further envelope Ext. P1 wherein these letters were found was addressed to the accused. Once these letters have been proved to be that of the deceased and her husband, the important question which now arises is whether the contents therein constitute any such allegation which is spoken of by the witnesses, as precisely indicated above constituting cruelty or harassment. 30. The perusal of letter Ext.P2 clearly mentions about the uncalled for activities of the accused which were not liked by the deceased. The facts mentioned therein reveal that those acts were known to only four members in the family, i.e. her both parents in law, herself and her husband. There is also a reference of taking kisses and embarrassing by accused to which the deceased did not like and felt offensive, he being of the status of her father. She did not like the way in which accused had been expressing love to her. She cursed herself when it had happened for the first time, she did not stop him. She also advised accused to introspect himself whether he was right in his conduct and deeds. She did not like the way in which accused had been expressing love to her. She cursed herself when it had happened for the first time, she did not stop him. She also advised accused to introspect himself whether he was right in his conduct and deeds. There is also a reference that whenever he had kissed her, she had made the complaint to her mother-in-law, but it did not yield any result. When the accused crossed his limits, she disclosed this fact to her husband, who also felt enraged. Further she requested him that he should not commit such a mistake again and express his love with his daughter- in-law in the manner which outrages her modesty. She also apprised him that she was feeling suffocated in the house as these acts and deeds of the accused were hurting her. But, however, she also appreciated good deeds of the accused, simultaneously felt sorry on the conduct of her mother-in-law, who was helpless to resolve the issue. This speaks of volumes of the harassment by the accused which made her life a hell as the conduct of the accused was outrageous qua the modesty of his daughter-in-law. 31. Even in letter Ext.P3, husband of the deceased felt apologetic whatever he had spoken to his parents with respect to the conduct of his father and had outburst his anger on him and felt repentant. He also reminded him to introspect himself. 32. This is an admitted fact on record that the husband of the deceased had left her in the company of his parents in the village. About 15 days prior to commission of suicide she had informed her brother PW3 telephonically that the accused did not desist from his illegal activities. Therefore, the alleged cruelty is proximate to the time of suicide of the deceased which compelled her to commit suicide. On reappraisal of evidence in the light of law discussed above, in my considered opinion, the deceased was meted out physical and mental cruelty and harassment by the accused compelling her to commit suicide by consuming poison within nine months of her marriage. Thus, with the aid of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act having regard to all the circumstances in the case, the offence charged stands proved. Accordingly, conviction of the accused is upheld. 33. Thus, with the aid of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act having regard to all the circumstances in the case, the offence charged stands proved. Accordingly, conviction of the accused is upheld. 33. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant-accused pleaded for mercy having regard to his advanced old age and old age diseases and also that except him there is no other person to look after his aged wife, his one of the sons is living separately alongwith his family and is not putting well with him and another son, the husband of the deceased is working in Delhi and the entire family is ruined. He also submitted that during the investigation, accused remained in custody for about a month and from October, 2011 he is in jail undergoing the sentence. 34. I have considered the above arguments and having regard to mitigating and extenuating circumstances and also the fact that the accused is about 67 years of age now further the record shows that till date the convict-appellant has undergone more than 6 months imprisonment, therefore, the ends of justice shall be met if the substantive sentence is reduced to already undergone without disturbing fine and its default clause. Hence ordered accordingly. 35. In result, the appeal lacks merit, but while upholding the conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence is modified to the above extent. If the fine amount stands deposited, he be released forthwith, lest he shall undergo the imprisonment in default of fine. Disposed of.